Reading mode: Light Dark

Explain the 1D_ series AF to a 5D_ user please?

Go to last post
MinAZ

MinAZ

Veteran Member
Messages
5,715
Solutions
5
Reaction score
2,212
Location
Los Angeles, CA, US
I've never used or touched a 1D_ series camera, but those who have swear by its amazing AF system. I have owned every 5D camera, and never had complaints about its AF system, although I am sure its not as good as the 1D_ series. So, for those of you who have used both, what noticeable differences do you experience when shooting with both cameras? Under what situations will the 1D_ get images that the 5D_ fails to get? I already know the specs and advantages with regards to the RAW buffer and second processor etc... just curious as to how much it would improve actually getting in-focus images in real life.
 
I've been wondering the same thing for a long time. I have the 5D IV and it tracks amazingly as far as I can tell. I've shot at bats flying in very dark conditions with iTR with like almost every picture perfectly in focus with my 70-200 ii.

My understanding is that the 1DX ii will shine when using the super telephotos( tracking subjects that move through focus position of the lens quickly) because of high voltage batteries /and/or just because it supplies more juice to the lenses for move the actual lens af motor faster. My understanding is that this is the most measurable way that it will give better AF accuracy during citations where subjects rack through the focusing distance quickly with large telephoto lenses.

The less specific scenario in where the 1dxii may (possibly) outperform the 5D IV is in the fact that it has an extra processor, which will probably help tracking is difficult conditions( low light, low contrast, minimal color information) But only when using the intelligent tracking only. ( Zone AF, Large Zone AF, Auto selection AF)

AI servo tracking ( assuming you are not using one of the intelligent zone modes ( Zone AF, Large Zone AF, Auto selection AF), is exactly the same in theory, based off the information we have, as well as photographers who have had both bodies and tested side by side.( Assuming you are not using one of the Super telephotos: 200 F/2,300 F/2.8, 400 F/2.8, 500 F/4, 600 F/4 800 F/5.6)

In most of the situations I use my camera, AI Servo, Expand AF area, using non super telephoto lenses, the AF should be exactly the same( and probably is)

However, I am curious as to how much better the iTR autofocus is in difficult conditions, and also how much faster it is with Super telephotos.
 
The 5D IV has a toned down version of the 1DX II AF. I think the big thing is the color module is lower resolution.
 
gavin said:
The 5D IV has a toned down version of the 1DX II AF. I think the big thing is the color module is lower resolution.
Click to expand...
 
Not much difference between the two in the AF department. However, they are tools for different jobs.

I tried my 5d4 at sporting events, but it just wasn't fast enough. The speed of the 1dx2 is undeniable and the ability to push iso over 2000 with very clean files.
 
What sticks in my mind the most is that the 1D Mark III had the worst AF fiasco ever, or at least it seemed to. I never used the camera, but I read the posts about it. :)
 
Victor Engel said:
What sticks in my mind the most is that the 1D Mark III had the worst AF fiasco ever, or at least it seemed to. I never used the camera, but I read the posts about it. :)
Click to expand...
 
There are a bunch of factors in my autofocus experience. I haven't used the recent 5D models but the difference between the 1D models and the earlier 5D models were dramatic. Here are some factors:
  • How quickly will the camera get correct focus on the subject? Do you get a shot of a basketball player before they shoot the ball or after? When you're switching between many subjects, this is critical.
  • How well will the camera track a subject that moving erratically? The car coming towards the camera at a steady speed is not a good test for this. In sports, people stop and go in different directions all the time and the camera has to deal with it.
  • How easily is the camera confused by distractions around the subject? One test is the person running towards the camera. A certain 1D model had a habit of being confused by the person's arms. There is also the problem of non-subjects getting in the way and fooling the camera into focusing on them.
  • How well does it handle sudden changes in light levels? A nightmare is when a subject is running between bright sunlight and shade.
  • How quickly will the camera reacquire the subject if it loses it? If my 1D Mark IV loses my subject, it takes what seems like forever to lock on it again. My 1DX will find it again in a fraction of a second.
  • How well does it work in low light? Everything in tracking gets worse as the light levels drop. A camera that could track your subject in daylight isn't having as much luck indoors. It's missing focus, there's a delay before it gets focus on anything, it keeps locking on the background or other subjects, and focus seems to jump around the subject for no reason.
 
Moon said:
Victor Engel said:
What sticks in my mind the most is that the 1D Mark III had the worst AF fiasco ever, or at least it seemed to. I never used the camera, but I read the posts about it. :)

--
Victor Engel
Click to expand...
That was very 'over-hyped' (blown out of proportion), IMO there *was* an AF issue - but it was very specific- affecting only very specific scenarios in very specific conditions - and only a specific range (serial numbers) of cameras. I think the real issue was more about how Canon handled it - which was poorly - at least at 1st. Thankfully they came around and took care of it. The 1dm3 is still my favorite to date and you'll get mine when you pry it from my cold, dead hands! ;-)
Click to expand...
My nightmare experience with my first 1D Mark III was not a very specific scenario in a very specific conditions at all. It simply couldn't focus very well. It couldn't track hardly anything even in daylight. The focus was completely erratic even after the submirror was replaced.

Yes, Canon made it worse. I sent my camera to them three times. Each time, "WITHIN SPEC" they told me. How could Canon not be able to fix their own cameras? One theory is at that time the technicians just ran a quick test on the center focus point. If it worked then the entire autofocus system was declared "WITHIN SPEC". Testing all 45 focus points took a huge amount of time. After they released the 1D Mark IV, Canon created an automated system for testing and calibrating every focus point.

So, I took the camera back to the store and threatened to buy a Nikon D3, and Canon immediately authorized a replacement. The new 1D Mark III was an entirely different experience. By the first time out of the first basketball game, I had gotten shots in focus that I never would have gotten with the previous camera. It was a huge relief.
 
The 1DXII and 5D IV AF is probably the closest in a generation than it has ever been. I think the new Sony A9 AF looks interesting. It will be the future and I hope Canon can deliver in a few years when I am ready to upgrade again.
 
Definitely no pressure to do so, but it would be interesting to see differences in image quality at high iso comparing your 5DIV and 1DXii at iso 6400 etc.

I just took my first photo at iso 102,400 at a campfire and despite clearly having major major noise, the photo is still beautiful.
 
The 1DXII would be better at high ISO since its lower resolution. I am happy enough with my mk IV.
 
MinAZ said:
I've never used or touched a 1D_ series camera, but those who have swear by its amazing AF system. I have owned every 5D camera, and never had complaints about its AF system, although I am sure its not as good as the 1D_ series. So, for those of you who have used both, what noticeable differences do you experience when shooting with both cameras? Under what situations will the 1D_ get images that the 5D_ fails to get? I already know the specs and advantages with regards to the RAW buffer and second processor etc... just curious as to how much it would improve actually getting in-focus images in real life.
Click to expand...
 
Comparing 1D_ series cameras with 5D_ series cameras is pretty complex. There has been four different 5D_ series cameras, and ten different 1D_ models over the years.

The 5D and 5D Mark II were significantly simpler in AF department than their contemporary 1D-series cameras. But the 5D Mark III/1DX and 5D Mark IV/1DX Mark II are much more similar.

One big difference with the 1DX/1DX Mark II is that they are capable of doing the same thing as the 5D Mark III/5D Mark IV in half the time, as they take twice as many pictures per second. This requires a much higher capacity in the AF system in a 1D-series camera, but you'll not notice that on individual pictures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Satyaa
How can companies validate demand for a new/proposed camera
Replies
13
Views
2K
FrancoD
F
S
GFX 100s or 100s II
Replies
7
Views
4K
JSalk53
J
C
Preference for MF or AF lenses? That is: after experience with both
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
Nebido
Nebido
RobbieV
  • Question Question
Face Detect on OM-3 & OM-1.2 the same?
Replies
8
Views
5K
Skeeterbytes
S
A
Sony a1 ii users, experience with new xtra small af point?
Replies
10
Views
2K
AlephNull
A

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top